central electricity regulatory …cercind.gov.in/2017/orders/55-tt.pdfpage 4 of 63 order in petition...

of 63

Order in Petition No. 55/TT/2017

CENTRAL ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION

NEW DELHI

Petition No. 55/TT/2017

Coram: Shri Gireesh B. Pradhan, Chairperson Shri A.K. Singhal, Member Shri A.S. Bakshi, Member

Dr. M.K. Iyer, Member

Date of Hearing: 3.8.2017 Date of Order: 30.11.2017

In the matter of:

Approval under Regulation 86 of Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Conduct of Business) Regulations, 1999 and Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms and Conditions of Tariff) Regulations 2014 for determination of transmission tariff from COD to 31.3.2019 for Asset-I: Combined Assets (a) One circuit of 400 kV D/C Dehradun – Bagpat line alongwith associated bays at both ends. Part of second circuit of 400 kV D/C Dehradun – Bagpat T/L as 400 kV S/C Roorkee – Dehradun line from Dehradun end and partly as 400 kV S/C Saharanpur – Bagpat line from Bagpat end using part of one circuit of 400 kV D/C Roorkee – Saharanpur line (under NRSS XXI) at inter-section point alongwith associated bays at Dehradun and Bagpat end, (b) 400/220 kV, 315 MVA ICT-I at Dehradun and associated bays with 1 no. 220 kV line bays, (c) 400/220 kV, 315 MVA ICT-II at Dehradun and associated bays with 1 no. 220 kV line bays and (d) 80 MVAR Bus reactor at Dehradun and associated bays; and Asset-II: 4 nos. 220 kV bays at Dehradun S/S under NRSS-XVIII Scheme in Northern Region.

And in the matter of:

Power Grid Corporation of India Limited, “Saudamini”, Sector 29, Gurgaon-122001 Haryana ….Petitioner

Vs

1. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited Vidyut Bhawan, Vidyut Marg, Jaipur - 302005 2. Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited 400 kV GSS Building (Ground Floor), Ajmer Road, Heerapura, Jaipur

of 63


3. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited 400 kV GSS Building (Ground Floor), Ajmer Road, Heerapura, Jaipur. 4. Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited 400 kV GSS Building (Ground Floor), Ajmer Road, Heerapura, Jaipur 5. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Vidyut Bhawan Shimla-171004 6. Punjab State Electricity Board The Mall, Patiala-147001 7. Haryana Power Purchase Centre Shakti Bhawan, Sector-6 Panchkula (Haryana) 134 109 8. Power Development Department Government of Jammu & Kashmir Mini Secretariat, Jammu 9. Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited (Formerly Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board) Lucknow - 226 001 10. Delhi Transco Ltd. Shakti Sadan, Kotla Road, New Delhi-110002 11. BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. BSES Bhawan, Nehru Place, New Delhi. 12. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. BSES Bhawan, Nehru Place, New Delhi 13. North Delhi Power ltd. Power Trading & Load Dispatch Group Pitampura, New Delhi. 14. Chandigarh Administration Sector -9, Chandigarh. 15. Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. Urja Bhawan, Kanwali Road, Dehradun.

of 63


16. North Central Railway, Allahabad. 17. New Delhi Municipal Council Palika Kendra, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110002 ….Respondents For Petitioner : Shri S.K. Niranjan, PGCIL Shri S.K. Venkatesan, PGCIL Shri Rakesh Prasad, PGCIL Shri B. Dash, PGCIL Shri V.P. Rastogi, PGCIL

For Respondents : Sh. R. B. Sharma, Advocate, BRPL

ORDER

The present petition has been filed by Power Grid Corporation of India

Limited. (“PGCIL”) seeking approval under Regulation 86 of Central Electricity

Regulatory Commission (Conduct of Business) Regulations, 1999 and Central

Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms and Conditions of Tariff) Regulations,

2014 (hereinafter referred to as the 2014 Tariff Regulations) for determination of

transmission tariff from COD to 31.3.2019 for Asset-I: Combined Assets (a) One

circuit of 400 kV D/C Dehradun – Bagpat line alongwith associated bays at both

ends. Part of second circuit of 400 kV D/C Dehradun – Bagpat T/L as 400 kV

S/C Roorkee – Dehradun line from Dehradun end and partly as 400 kV S/C

Saharanpur – Bagpat line from Bagpat end using part of one circuit of 400 kV

D/C Roorkee – Saharanpur line (under NRSS XXI) at inter-section point along

with associated bays at Dehradun and Bagpat end, (b) 400/220 kV, 315 MVA

ICT-I at Dehradun and associated bays with 1 no. 220 kV line bays, (c) 400/220

kV, 315 MVA ICT-II at Dehradun and associated bays with 1 no. 220 kV line bays

of 63


and (d) 80 MVAR Bus reactor at Dehradun and associated bays; and Asset-II: 4

nos. 220 kV bays at Dehradun (hereinafter referred as “transmission assets”) for

2014-19 tariff period in Northern Region under the 2014 Tariff Regulations.

2. The Scope of the work as per Investment Approval:

The scope of work covered under “Northern Region System Strengthening

Scheme-XVIII” scheme is as follows:

A. Transmission Lines:

1.) Dehradun- Bagpat 400 kV D/C (Quard) line- 170 Kms

B. Substation Works:

1.) New 2*315 MVA, 400/220 kV Dehradun Substation.

2.) Extension of Bagpat 400/220 kV Gas Insulated Substation.

C. Reactive Compensation:

Sr.

No. Item Description

Approx.

Line length

Line Reactor

– From Bus

Line

Reactor

– To Bus

1 Dehradun- Bagpat 400

kV D/C (Quad) Line 170 Kms

50 MVAR on

each ckt. NIL

2 1x80 MVAR Bus reactor at Dehradun

3. Assets covered in the instant petition is as follows :

Sr No. Asset

1

Asset-I:

Combined Assets:

a) One circuit of 400 kV D/C Dehradun-Bagpat line along with

associated bays at both ends. Part of second circuit of 400 kV D/C

Dehradun-Bagpat T/L as 400 kV S/C Roorkee- Dehradun line from

Dehradun end and partly as 400 kV S/C Saharanpur- Bagpat line

of 63


from Bagpat end using part of one circuit of 400 kV D/C Roorkee-

Saharanpur line (under-NRSS XXI) at intersection point along with

associated bays at Dehradun and Bagpat end.,

b) 400/220 kV, 315 MVA ICT-1 at Dehradun and associated bays

with 1 no. 220 kV Line bay,

c) 400/220 kV, 315 MVA ICT-II at Dehradun and associated bays with

1 no. 220 kV Line bay, and

d) 80 MVAR Bus Reactor at Dehra\dun and associated bays

2 Asset-II: 04 nos. 220 kV bays at Dehradun S/S

4. The Investment Approval (IA) and expenditure sanction for the transmission

project was accorded by the Board of Directors of the petitioner vide letter dated

11.2.2009 at an estimated cost of `50966.00 lakh including an IDC of `3667.00

lakh based on 4th Quarter, 2008 price level.

5. The scope of the scheme was discussed and agreed in 23rd Standing

Committee meeting on Transmission System planning of Northern Region held

on 16.2.2008, and further in 7th TCC and 8th NRPC meeting held on 25.4.2008.

6. During 36th Standing Committee Meeting on Power System Planning in

Northern Region held on 13.7.2015 at NRPC, it was deliberated and decided that

due to stiff resistance from farmers especially in Saharanpur, Muzzafarnagar,

Bagpat, Shamli and Meerut, the construction of LILO of 400 kV D/C Dehradun-

Bagpat transmission line at Saharanpur (under NRTSS) was not feasible.

Various meetings were taken by Special Secretary, Ministry of Power, wherein

petitioner requested for deployment of police force by the DM (Saharanpur) so

that work can be initiated. Keeping in view severe RoW issue and public protest,

DM (Saharanpur) opined that the petitioner may drop LILO of 400 kV Dehradun-

Bagpat D/C Line at Saharanpur and assured to provide police force for

of 63


completion of other two lines (400 kV Dehradun- Bagpat D/C line under current

project and 400 kV Roorkee-Saharanpur D/C line under NRSS XXI). As

Saharanpur sub-station would have been in radial mode after deletion of LILO of

400 kV Dehradun-Bagpat D/C Line at Saharanpur. Hence, to provide stability, it

was decided to route one circuit of Dehradun-Bagpat line through Roorkee and

Saharanpur sub-stations using Roorkee Saharanpur D/C line.

7. As the 400 kV D/C Dehradun- Bagpat line is crossing 400 kV D/C Roorkee-

Saharanpur line, an alternate arrangement was made at the crossing point to

divert one circuit of Dehradun- Bagpat line from Dehradun end to Roorkee end

and further from Bagpat end to Saharanpur. After this arrangement, one circuit of

Dehradun-Bagpat will be direct and the second circuit will be routed through

existing Roorkee and Saharanpur sub-stations.

8. In view of above arrangement, nomenclature of “400 kV Dehradun-Bagpat

D/C line alongwith associated bays” shall be as “One circuit of 400 kV D/C

of 63


Dehradun-Bagpat line along with associated bays at both ends. Part of second

circuit of 400 kV D/C Dehradun-Bagpat T/L as 400 kV S/C Roorkee- Dehradun

line from Dehradun end and partly as 400 kV S/C Saharanpur- Bagpat line from

Bagpat end using part of one circuit of 400 kV D/C Roorkee- Saharanpur line

(under-NRSS XXI) at intersection point along with associated bays at Dehradun

and Bagpat end”. (Single line diagram is placed at annexure-III of this order)

9. Annual Fixed Cost was granted for the instant transmission asset vide order

dated 12.6.2017, under first proviso to Regulation 7 (7) of the 2014 Tariff

Regulation for inclusion of the POC charges.

10. The capital cost claimed by the petitioner as per auditor‟s certificate dated

8.6.2017 is as below:

Asset-1(a) (` in lakh)

Particulars Capital cost IEDC IDC Total

Expenditure upto 31.3.2016 38165.70 1872.10 11747.65 52235.45

Expenditure from 1.4.2016 to 30.1.2017 (DOCO: 31.1.2017) 7573.84 30.72 3355.01 10959.57

Expenditure form 11.11.2016 to 31.3.2017 2298.23 - - 2298.23

Estimated expenditure during 2017-18 5803.33 - - 5803.33


Total 55741.61 1902.82 15102.66 72747.15

Initial spares included in above 367.68

Asset- 1 (b, c, d) (` in lakh)




Expenditure form 11.11.2016 to 440.66 - - 440.66

of 63


31.3.2017



Total 6511.61 255.34 1606.73 8373.68


Asset-2 (` in lakh)




Expenditure form 11.11.2016 to 31.3.2017 125.26 - - 125.26



Total 1001.62 72.01 306.81 1380.44


11. The details of the transmission charges claimed by the petitioner vide

affidavit dated 3.7.2017, are as under:-

Asset-1(a)

(` in lakh) Particulars 2016-17

(pro-rata) 2017-18 2018-19

Depreciation 527.21 3366.82 3587.67

Interest on Loan 640.16 3894.25 3843.55

Return on Equity 626.75 3986.94 4237.05

Interest on working capital 42.06 263.18 272.94

O & M Expenses 56.36 343.89 355.31

Total 1892.54 11855.08 12296.52

Asset- 1 (b, c, d) (` in lakh)

Particulars 2016-17 (pro-rata)

2017-18 2018-19

Depreciation 57.00 393.05 422.50

Interest on Loan 63.78 424.85 427.68

Return on Equity 64.06 446.49 485.24


O & M Expenses 60.00 385.73 398.53

Total 252.01 1697.86 1783.91

of 63


Asset- 2

(` in lakh) Particulars 2016-17

(pro-rata) 2017-18 2018-19

Depreciation 10.40 70.70 72.07

Interest on Loan 11.93 77.56 72.81

Return on Equity 11.59 78.78 80.30


O & M Expenses 28.43 186.20 192.40

Total 64.58 427.93 432.55

12. The details submitted by the petitioner in support of its claim for interest on

working capital are as under:-

Asset-1(a)

(` in lakh)

Asset-1(b, c, d) (` in lakh)

13. No comments or suggestions have been received from the general public in

response to the notices published by the petitioner under Section 64 of the

Electricity Act, 2003 (“The Act”). BSES Rajdhani Power Limited (BRPL),

Respondent No. 12 and UPPCL, Respondent No. 9 have filed reply vide affidavit

dated 28.4.2017 and 18.4.2017 respectively. BRPL has raised issue of time over-


2017-18 2018-19

Maintenance Spares 49.92 51.58 52.30

O & M Expenses 27.73 28.66 29.61

Receivables 1862.50 1975.85 2049.42

Total 1940.16 2056.09 2131.33

Rate of Interest 12.80% 12.80% 12.80%

Interest 42.06 263.18 272.94


2017-18 2018-19


O & M Expenses 31.11 32.14 33.21

Receivables 261.35 282.98 297.32

Total 348.46 372.98 390.31

Rate of Interest 12.80% 12.80% 12.80%

Interest 7.17 47.74 49.96

of 63


run, cost variation, effective tax rate, reimbursement of expenditure towards filing

fee etc. The petitioner has filed rejoinder dated 8.5.2017 to the reply of BRPL and

UPPCL. The objections raised by the respondents and the clarifications given by

the petitioner are addressed in the relevant paragraphs of this order.

14. The respondent, UPPCL vide affidavit dated 18.4.2017 has submitted that

the petitioner may be directed to submit the copy of the relevant OMs and explain

whether GOI has delegated all the powers of Cabinet Committee for Economic

Affairs regarding granting of approval to Govt. projects to the Board of Directors

of Public Utilities for all the time to come. It has also requested that the RCE of

the instant projects may be submitted.

15. The petitioner vide affidavit dated 8.5.2017, has submitted rejoinder to reply

of UPPCL as under:-

“…..As per Clause 2 (i) of DPE‟s Office Memorandum No. DPE/11(2)/97-Fin dated 22nd July, 1997 "Navratna Company has full power to incur expenditure on purchase of new items or for replacement, without any monetary ceiling". Relevant documents are submitted along with RCE of the project.”

16. We have considered the submissions of UPPCL as regards delegation of

power and the clarification given by the petitioner. This issue has already been

considered by the Commission in its order dated 30.8.2017 in petition No.

41/TT/2016. The relevant portion of the said order is as under:-

“UPPCL has submitted that the petitioner should explain whether Government of India has delegated all the powers of Cabinet Committee for Economic Affairs regarding granting of approval of government projects to the Board of Directors of Public Sector Utilities for all times to come. UPPTCL has stated that the petitioner should submit the concerned orders of the Government of India. The petitioner has clarified that as per Clause 2 (i) of DPE‟s Office Memorandum No. DPE/11(2)/97-Fin dated 22.7.1997 Navratna Company has full power to incur expenditure on purchase of new items or for replacement, without any monetary ceiling. The petitioner has submitted a copy of OM No. 26(3)/2005-GM-GL-92 dated 1.5.2008 and OM No. DPE/11(2)/97-FIN dated 22.7.1997, a copy of which has also been provided to UPPCL. It is observed from the above said Office Memorandums, that the Navratna status of the petitioner and other PSUs is reviewed by the

of 63


Department of Public Enterprises, Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises on yearly basis and if they do not fulfil the conditions laid down the Navratna status is withdrawn. However, this is not a relevant consideration as the approval of the Board of Directors should be accorded when the company is enjoying the Navratna status. In the present case, PGCIL as a Navratna company has approved the investment approval and therefore, the same has been considered for the purpose of tariff

17. Having heard the petitioner and perused the material on record, we proceed

to dispose of the petition.

Date of Commercial operation (COD) :

18. The petitioner has initially claimed anticipated date of commercial operation

of the instant assets as 1.12.2016.

19. With regard to Asset-II, the petitioner has submitted that out of 6 Nos. 220

kV downstream network, 2 Nos. 220 kV downstream network (220 kV Dehradun-

Jhajra-1 and Dehradun-Jhajra-II) have been commissioned on 4.2.2017 along

with 2 Nos. 220 kV bays at Dehradun covered under Asset-1(b, c, d) in the

instant petition. Asset-II, i.e. 4 Nos. 220 kV bays are not in use due to non-

commissioning of 4 Nos. 220 kV downstream lines under the scope of PTCUL.

The petitioner has prayed for approval of the COD under the second proviso to

Regulation 4(3) of the 2014 Tariff Regulations.

20. The petitioner vide affidavit dated 8.5.2017 has submitted the actual COD

of the assets and the same are as follows:

of 63


Assets Scheduled COD as per IA

COD

Asset-I:

Combined Assets:

a) One circuit of 400 kV D/C Dehradun-

Bagpat line along with associated bays at

both ends. Part of second circuit of 400 kV

D/C Dehradun-Bagpat T/L as 400 kV S/C

Roorkee- Dehradun line from Dehradun end

and partly as 400 kV S/C Saharanpur-

Bagpat line from Bagpat end using part of

one circuit of 400 kV D/C Roorkee-

Saharanpur line (under-NRSS XXI) at

intersection point along with associated

bays at Dehradun and Bagpat end.,

(Line length: 166 Ckt Km)

10.11.2011

31.1.2017

Asset-1

b) 400/220 kV, 315 MVA ICT-1 at Dehradun

and associated bays with 1 no. 220 kV line

bay,

c) 400/220 kV, 315 MVA ICT-II at

Dehradun and associated bays with 1 no.

220 kV line bay, and

d) 80 MVAR bus reactor at Dehradun and

associated bays

10.11.2011 3.2.2017

Asset-II: 04 Nos. 220 kV bays at Dehradun

sub-station. 10.11.2011 3.2.2017

21. The Commission vide provisional order dated 12.6.2017 directed the

petitioner to submit the “status of downstream of 220 kV bays”. In response the

petitioner vide affidavit dated 3.7.2017 has submitted that out of 6 Nos. 220 kV

downstream network 02 Nos. 220 kV downstream network (220 kV Dehradun-

Jhajra-1 & Dehradun-Jhajra-II) has been commissioned on 3.2.2017 along with 2

Nos. bays at Dehradun covered under asset-1 (b, c, d). The remaining 04 Nos.

220 kV downstream network w.r.t asset-II are yet to be commissioned. The

of 63


petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has communicated with PTCUL and

no reply has been received from PTCUL.

22. We have considered the submission of the petitioner. In support of

commercial operation of the assets covered in the instant petition, the petitioner

has submitted self-declaration COD letter and RLDC charging certificate dated

27.2.2017 for Asset 1(a) and Asset1 (b ,c ,d) and RLDC charging certificate on

no-load for asset-II . Accordingly the COD of the Asset 1(a) and Asset 1 (b, c, d)

is considered as 31.01.2017 and 03.02.2017 respectively.

23. It is observed that Asset-II is not in regular service due to non-availability

of associated downstream transmission system under the scope of PTCUL and

therefore, the COD of Asset-II is not considered in the instant order. The

petitioner is directed to file fresh petition matching with the associated

downstream transmission system.

24. Taking into considerations the submissions made by the petitioner, the

SRLDC certificates and CEA certificates submitted by the petitioner in support of

trial operation, the following dates of commercial operation are approved as per

the 2014 Tariff Regulations:-

Asset COD

Asset-1(a) 31.01.2017

Asset-1(b, c, d) 3.2.2017

Asset-2 Not granted

25. Clause 6.3 (A) (4) (vi) of the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission

(Indian Electricity Regulatory Commission) Regulation, 2010 is as follows:

of 63


“(vi) The transmission licensee shall submit a certificate from the

CMD/CEO/MD of the Company that the transmission line, sub-station and

communication system conform to the relevant Grid Standard and Grid Code,

and are capable of operation to their full capacity.”

It is observed that petitioner has not enclosed CMD certificate as required under

Regulation 6.3 (A)(4) of the Indian Electricity Grid Code. Hence, the petitioner is

directed to furnish CMD certificate at the time of truing up.

Time Over-Run

26. As per the investment approval, the schedule completion was 33 months

from the date of investment approval. The date of investment approval is

11.2.2009. Hence, the scheduled date of commercial operations is 10.11.2011

against which the subject assets were put under commercial operation as per the

details given below:

Assets Scheduled

COD as per IA COD

Delay in Months

(Approx.)

Asset-1( a) 10.11.2011 31.1.2017 62 months & 21 days

Asset-1( b,c,d) 10.11.2011 3.2.2017 62 months and 24 days

27. The petitioner has submitted the following justifications in support of delay

in respect of Asset-1 (Combined Assets a, b, c & d) and the same are as follows:

400 kV D/C (QUAD) DEHRADUN-BAGPAT TRANSMISSION LINE

(a) The 400 kV Dehradun-Bagpat line was scheduled to be completed in

November‟ 2016. The assets under Dehradun sub-station got delayed due

to delay in COD of 400 kV Dehradun- Bagpat transmission line.

(b) The transmission line passes through Dehradun district of Uttarakhand and

Saharanpur, Shamli, Muzaffarnagar and Bagpat districts of Western UP.

of 63


The progress of work was smooth till October, 2010 but events took a turn

when GAIL (Gas Authority of India Ltd.) who was constructing a gas pipe

line through the districts of Bagpat, Muzaffar nagar, Shamli and Saharanpur

made an agreement on 2.11.2010 with farmers to pay higher / market

rates of compensation against use of land (Right of Use) and for trees of

various species. These rates were very high in comparison to rates notified

by the State government. The impact of this agreement spread on other

projects of these districts and the farmers affected by the lines of the

petitioner also approached Kisan Unions for want of similar compensation in

the corridor of transmission lines for land / crops and trees. They also

demanded compensation of land against „Right of Use‟ which was not

payable under “Indian Telegraph Act‟ 1885” and “Indian Electricity Act‟

2003”.

(c) The petitioner could manage work despite resistance up to April‟ 2011 with

slow progress but the resistance spread in all the districts of western UP

and finally work completely stopped in May‟ 2011. The petitioner

approached district administration at various levels, but matter could not be

resolved. Then The petitioner apprised the situation to Ministry of Power

and Chief Secretary of UP. On 16.10.2012, the Minister for Power &

Corporate Affairs, Ministry of Power, GOI, wrote letter to Chief Minister, UP

but the RoW issues remained unresolved. After a series of meetings and

deliberations with administrative officials and Kisan Unions, the work was

resumed in January‟ 2015 with frequent resistance and hindrances from the

farmers which are still being faced in completion of the line.

of 63


(d) The RoW problems started from 18.10.2010 and the same are still being

faced till completion of the line which constitutes almost 72 months of

hindrance in completion of the project. However, with best efforts, The

petitioner could reduce this delay of 72 months to 60 months.

28. BRPL and UPPCL have submitted that the time over-run is attributable to

the petitioner hence it could not be allowed.

29. In response, the petitioner has submitted detailed justification of delay and

with regard to delay at Dehradun Sub-Station i.e. Asset-1(b, c, d), it is submitted

that Dehradun is a new Sub-Station and without the upcoming 400 kV Dehradun-

Bagpat line, the Sub-Station cannot be put to the commercial operation. The

petitioner has submitted that asset-1(b, c, d) got delayed due to delay in 400 kV

Dehradun-Bagpat D/C line.

30. The petitioner, vide affidavit dated 3.7.2017 has submitted the following:

Assets Period of activity Reason(s) for

Delay along with

reference

Planned Achieved

From To From To

Asset1

(a)

11.2.2009 10.11.2011 11.2.2009 31.1.2017 Persistent RoW

issue

Assset-

1(b, c,

d)

11.2.2009 10.11.2011 11.2.2009 03.2.2017 Due to delay in

Commissioning of

Asset-1(a).

31. The detailed chronology of the reasons of delay as submitted by the

petitioner is given below:

Date Reason of delay Details Reference

18.10.2010 The work was stopped by The contractor reported Copy of letters dt. 18.10.10,

of 63


the farmers in presence of Union leaders

obstruction to POWERGRID through various letters

30.10.10, 12.11.10, 14.12.10, 15.12.10 & 26.12.10

2.11.2010 M/s GAIL made an agreement with farmers for payment of compensation at market/ higher rates for their Gas pipe line project.

The farmers affected by POWERGRID demanded same compensation for transmission lines

Copy of Agreement dt. 2.11.2010

21.12.2010 Work stopped by farmers in Dehradun-Bagpat line

The matter was reported to DM Saharanpur

Copy of letter dt.21.12.2010

3.1.2011 DM, Saharanpur issued instructions to SDMs for resolving issue

DM letter dt. 3.1.2011

11.1.2011 Farmers stopped stringing work in Saharanpur

Matter was reported to SDM

Letter dt. 11.1.2011

25.1.2011 Farmers stopped foundation work in Saharanpur


Letter dt. 25.1..2011

3.2.2011 The Commissioner, Saharanpur wrote a letter to POWERGRID Saharanpur and Dehradun for meeting

POWERGRID had a meeting with commissioner to clear the issue of compensation

Letter of commissioner dated 3.2.2011

26.2.2011 Villagers obstructed the work in Saharanpur district


Letter dt.26.2.2011

14.3.2011 After various agitations, the Commissioner and DM forwarded the demands of the forum in the month of March’2011, to the UP Govt. to seek the ways through amendment in the rules so that the demand of paying ‘Right of Use’ in transmission line can be fulfilled in addition to the compensation of trees and crops.

GM (Projects-I ) & AGM (Roorkee) had a meeting with DM and asked for administrative help to start the works

-

24.3.2011 Very strong agitation all over district Saharanpur and at Loc 54/6, Madaki village, farmers snatched equipment used for final checking of Tower

A letter was written to DM, Saharanpur

Copy of letter dt. 24.3.2011

of 63


7.4.2011 Farmers and their Union organized a gherao at POWERGRID site office at Saharanpur

1. Meeting with DM Saharanpur & Letter given to them with all concern SDM’s

2. Matter informed to DGM(PESM)

copy of letter dt. 7.4.2011, news paper report dt. 8.4.2011

11.4.2011 Commissioner and DM forwarded the demands of the forum to the UP Govt. to seek the ways so that ‘Right of Use’ can be paid in transmission line.

ED, NR-1 met the Commissioner Saharanpur on 12.4.2011

-

15.4.2011 Farmers did not allow Erection of tower in Bagpat District

Letter to SDM Baraut for restart of work.

Copy of letter dt. 15.4.2011& 16.4.2011

20.4.2011 On Dt 19.4.11 POWERGRID employ went for distribution of cheques of farmers but they refused to accept and when POWERGRID employ take measurement of crop damage during stringing, union leader and local farmers collected and did manhandling of POWERGRID Officers.

Stringing Work stopped/FIR done against Farmer From 19.4.2011 work fully stopped.


4.5.11 to

31.5.11

Very strong agitation all over district Saharanpur and other area

Various meeting with DM & SDM’s & letter given to SDM’s to resumed work but no support from Administration, Saharanpur given to POWERGRID.

Letter dt.9.5.11, 10.5.2011, 12.5.2011, 16.5.2011 & 21.5.2011,26.5.2011

15.6.11 To

24.6.11

TL construction work suspended due to strong agitation

Work totally stopped/ On Dt 22.6.2011 a meeting was held between DM and all union leaders but Farmer & Union leader did not support to start Line work till their demand was not fulfilled

Meeting with DM on 15.6.11 and letter given to start resume work

24.6.2011 DM Saharanpur issued another letter to SDM’s for helping POWERGRID in cases where compensation was already paid to the farmers.

Since the compensation is paid only after completion of works, this letter did not help in starting the balance works.

Letter of DM dt. 24.6.2011

30.6.11 To

12.7.11

farmers and union resisted the work strongly & TL work suspended due

Work totally stopped

of 63


to strong agitation

13.7.11 TL work suspended due to strong agitation

Work totally stopped. On 13.7.2011, GM (Proj) wrote a letter & Meeting with DM, Saharanpur for helping in start of works of POWERGRID

Copy of letter dt. 13.7.2011 & 23.7.2011, 1.8.2011

20.8.2011 Due to stoppage of work a letter was written to DM, Saharanpur


19.9.2011 A meeting was held in local circuit house along with farmers and union representatives. The Union repeated its demand of compensation against land coming in the Right of Way corridor (46 M) of transmission line in the form of Right Of Use and monthly rent for the land occupied by the four legs of the tower.

The City magistrate asked union to reconsider their demands but union did not agree.

Copy of GM’s letter dt. 22.9.2011

30.9.2011 ED, NR-1, held a meeting with the Secretary(Power)

The Secy. (Power) confirmed from DM that there is severe ROW problem in Saharanpur and the farmers are demanding the cost of land

13.10.2011 Severe ROW problem in Saharanpur

CMD, POWERGRID wrote a letter to Chief Secretary

Letter of CMD dt. 13.10.2011

18.10.2011 Special Secretary (Energy), UP forwarded the letter of Commissioner Saharanpur and asked for comments of POWERGRID regarding the demands of farmers union

ED(NR-I) replied to Special Secretary (Energy), UP that as per provisions of existing Electricity Act-2003 and Indian Telegraph Act-1885, the compensation for land is not payable

Letter of ED, NR-1, dt. 25.10.2011

6.11.2011 Union started distributing pamphlets in the sugarcane belts of western UP to unite the farmers of other districts.

CMD POWERGRID had a meeting with Chief Secretary on 15.11.2011

29.12.2011 An attempt was made to restart the work of stringing in A-3 PKG of line and the DM was requested to provide help

A letter was issued from DM Saharanpur to SDM(Behat) for restart of work of stringing in Behat tehsil

Letter dt 29.12.2011

29.12.2011 to 7.1.2012

TL work suspended due to strong agitation

1. Engineer (TLC) Dehradun Meeting with DM, Saharanpur

Copy of letter of SDM, Behatdt 31.12.2012

of 63


4.1.2012 The work of stringing was restarted in Behat area but it was stopped by the villagers in Dehradun-Bagpat line (A-3 PKG)

Matter was reported to DM, Saharanpur, he advised for a meeting with farmers and nominated City Magistrate as his representative.(12.1.2012)

Letter to DM, Saharanpur dt. 12.1.2012

18.1.2012 Meeting was held in the office of City Magistrate with some affected farmers and union representatives. In the meeting the farmers repeated their demands of compensation at par with M/s GAIL and intimated that work shall not be allowed till their demands are met.

The City Magistrate asked union representatives to put up demands in writing and in accordance with the existing laws. The union agreed to put up their demands in writing in 15 days time.

-

10.2.2012 GM (Project-I) had a meeting with Commissioner and DM, Saharanpur.

The DM, Saharanpur expressed helplessness due to upcoming Assembly elections in the state and suggested to wait till completion of Assembly elections.

-

13.2.2012 GM(Project-I), requested through letter to Commissioner Saharanpur and Dm, Bagpat with copy to Secy(Power), UP.

-

Copy of letter dt 13.2.2012 & 14.2.2012

February and

March’12.

The administration was engaged in the UP Assembly elections

The work remained suspended in absence of administrative support

-

4.4.2012 The Kisan Union at Bagpat district opposed the line construction work for more compensation.

Matter was reported to DM Bagpat for providing assistance

Copy of letter dt. 4.4.2012 & 17.4.2012

24.5.2012 A meeting was held with DM, Saharanpur for finalizing the compensation after justification based on the demands raised by the unions so that work can be started

The DM, Saharanpur refused to recognize the unions of farmers, and asked for provisions of Indian Electricity Act’2003 and Indian Telegraph Act’1885, in which District Magistrate is bound to define compensation. He also suggested POWERGRID to decide the compensation mutually as has been done by M/s

Letter dt.24.5.2012

of 63


GAIL.

26.5.2012 A letter was written by GM(Meerut) to DM, Saharanpur

- Copy of letter dt. 26.5.2012

29.6.12 CMD POWERGRID wrote to Chief Secretary, U.P., apprising the matter and early action from concerned DMs

-

Letter of CMD dt. 29.6.2012

2.7.2012 CM, Sahranpur requested for providing assistance in work

- Copy of letter dt. 2.7.2012

31.7.12 Additional Secretary, Ministry of Power, Govt of India issued letter to concerned DMs to resolve the issue

POWERGRID met with DM Saharanpur on 3.8.12 in the contest of letter from Additional Secretary and requested to resolve the issues


3.8.12 General Manager POWERGRID Meerut requested concerns District DMs through letter for early resolution

Letter submitted to DM Bagpat, Muzaffarnagar, Saharanpur


6.8.2012 DM, Saharanpur constituted a committee for resolution of RoW issues

-

DM letter dt. 6.8.2012

16.10.2012 POWERGRID approached Ministry of Power, GOI for seeking support

Hon. Minister of Power and Corporate affairs wrote a letter to Chief Minister for his intervention

Copy of letter dt. 16.10.2012 from MOP

18.10.2012 Pr. Secy, IIDC, UP wrote a letter to DM, Saharanpur/Muzaffarnagar and Bagpat for resolving the issue

-

Letter dt 18.10.2012

19.10.2012 GM, Meerut wrote letter to various DMs regarding RoW issues in western UP

- Letter dt 19.10.2012

21.10.12 DM, Bagpat called for a meeting on 25.10.12 for ROW related issued

- Copy of letter dt. 21.10.2012.

12.11.2012 A letter was written to DM Saharanpur, regarding issues

- Copy of letter dt. 12.11.2012, 2.11.2012

21.11.12 Dir (Proj.), ED, NR-I and GM (Mrt) had a meeting with Ch. Secy, UP Govt. for solution of the issues.

Ch. Secy.(UP ) appreciated the problem and assured to extend co-operation through district

-

of 63


administration

5.12.12 Another meeting was held with Ch. Secy. (UP) by ED, NR-I for the issue.

All the concerned DMs were instructed by Ch. Secy to co-operate for ROW solution at District level.

-

10.12.12 Ch. Manager (PESM) a/w site met with DM(Bagpat) and DM(Saharanpur) for start of work in lines.

Both DM,s assured to extend help through concerned SDMs

-

22.12.12 DM (Bagpat) and DM Saharanpur were intimated

SDM, Baraut issued instructions for Police assistance. DM, Saharanpur also issued letter

Copy of letter dt. 22.12.2012 from DM and SDM.

28.12.12 The foundation work was started on Loc. No. 12/1 in BagpatDistt. In DDN-BPT line But the work was stopped by the union members

SDM, Baraut asked to stop The work and called a meeting of union members on 2.1. 2013 for amicable solution

-

4.1.2013 ED, NR-I wrote a letter to Ch. Secretary, UP for extending further help to start the work

-

Copy of letter dt. 4.1.2013 from ED, NR-I.

16.1.2013 Union leaders stopped the work on Loc. 58B/0 .

The matter was reported to SDM, Deoband, He assured to take necessary action.

Copy of letter to SDM, Deoband and endorsement to Police station Nagaldt. 16.1.2013

30.1.2013 DM, Saharanpur was requested for providing assistance to start the work

DM, Saharanpur issued instructions to SDM, Sadar for providing assistance

Copy of letter dt. 30.1.2013 form DM Saharanpur

21.2.2013 Another meeting was organized with Union leaders and it was expressed to them that POWERGRID can not pay for anything except damages as per the Telegraph Act

The Union leaders stated to close the project if the diminution in land value can not be paid. The matter was reported to DM, Bagpat and a copy of MOM was given to him

Copy of MOM Dt. 21.2.2013

22.2.2013 The Union leaders again raised the issue during the Kisaan Divas meeting at the office of DM, Bagpat and asked to give written judgement on the plaint submitted by them against POWERGRID to pay the Diminution value of the

DM, Bagpat assured Union leaders to look into the matter.

-

of 63


land before laying the transmission line.

26.2.2013 DM, Bagpat called for a meeting with GM, Meerut

The meeting was attended by GM, Meerut and CH. Manager Saharanpur. The New DM was again appraised with the relevant provisions of law to resolve the ROW problem

-

2.3.2013 SDM, Baraut called a meeting with POWERGRID and Union leaders

In the meeting the Union leaders were adamant for payment of diminution value of land

Copy of MOM dt. 2.3.2013

23.4.2013 DM, Bagpat nominated ADM as nodal officer to resolve RoWssues

-

Letter of DM dt. 23.4.2013 and ADM dt. 26.4.2013

23.4.2013 to 3.9.2013

POWERGRID had a series of meetings with kisan unions in presence of Nodal officers.

The Unions were adamant on their demands and did not allow work

-

3.9.2013 DM, Saharanpur was requested to provide police help

-

Letter dt. 3.9.2013

3.9.13 to 15.10.2013

Riots were erupted in the districts of Bagpat/ Muzaffar Nagar and Shamli between Hindu and Muslim Communities. The tower erection Gang working at Bagpat(Muslim Gang) was to be reverted.

SDM, Baraut was contacted. He advised to keep away the muslim gangs from the area till normalization of law and order situation.

-

6.2.2014 Foundation Work was not allowed by farmers in Dehradun-Bagpat TL (RS Co.) at loc. Nos. 60/1, 62/3, 62/4, 62/6, 63/1 & 63/2 and tower erection at 58/B in Deoband Tehsil.

Matter was reported to SDM, Deoband, who assured to resolve the issue

Copy of letter to SDMdt. 6.2.2014

14.3.2014 Stringing work stopped in Behat area of Saharanpur

Matter was reported to DM, Saharanpur,

letter to DM Saharanpur dated 14/03/14.

of 63


29/04/14 Conductor of incompleted stringing work of Dehradun-Bagpat TL in village Satpura & Kurdikhera, Tehsil-Behat cut & theft led to snapping of conductor on ground compromising public safety.

Matter was reported to DM, Saharanpur, who assured to resolve the issue.


02/06/14 Meeting Satpura, Mirjapur&Mohammadpur Tehsil-Behat for stringing of incomplete section of Dehradun-Bagpat TL (RS Co.). Villagers didn’t allow.

List of villagers opposing work submitted to DM, Saharanpur, who assured to resolve the issue


13/06/14 Work was stopped in Deoband Area of Saharanpur.

SDM, Deoband was requested to provide help


10.7.2014 DM Saharanpur nominated ADM as nodal officer for resolving RoW issues

-

Letter dt. 10.7.2014 &15.7.2014

14.7.2014 A meeting was held in the presence of DM, Shamli between GM(Meerut), other officers of POWERGRID and various leaders of farmers including Sh. Yogeshdahiya and ArunRana. During the meeting the union leaders repeated their demands of lease rent and Right of Use Charges for the land below transmission lines.

DM, Shamli intimated them that land compensation is not payable as per the Indian Telegraph Act -1885 and Indian Electricity Act’203. However the payment of compensation against damages shall be revised based on market rates in consultation with DFO, Shamli and other concerned agencies.

-

21/07/14

Farmers stopped work in Bagpat district

DM, Bagpat was requested to provide help


24/07/2014 Letter of DM Muzaffarnagar regarding RoW issues.

-

Letter dated 24/07/14

29.8.2014 POWERGRID approached Ch. Secretary, UP for resolution of RoW issues in lines of western UP

Ch. Secretary, UP issued instructions to concerned District Magistrates for extending co-operation to POWERGRID

Copy of letter dt. 29.8.2014 from Ch. Secretary, UP

of 63


10/10/2014 Meeting of DM Saharanpur with representatives of farmers and POWERGRID for resolving ROW.

POWERGRID agreed in meeting for payment of compensation as decided by DM Saharanpur and he decided the new compensation rates.

DM letter dated 27/10/2014

17/11/14 DM, Saharanpur was requested to issue order to exercise powers under Telegraph Act to POWERGRID

Letter / meeting with DM & Commissioner Saharanpur

Letter dated 17/11/2014.

20/03/2015 Completion of stringing work in tehsil Behat stopped due to ROW problem.

Meeting with DM Saharnpur regarding start of work in tehsil Behat


25/07/15 ROW problem in stringing work in district Saharanpur.

Letter to DM Saharnpur regarding resolution of ROW


05/08/15 Stoppage of Stringing work in village Fatehpurkala tehsil Deoband due to ROW problem.

Meeting with DM Saharnpur regarding redeployment of PAC / police protection for completion of work in tehsil Deoband.

DM letter dated 05/08/2015.

7.10.2015 Stoppage of Stringing work in village Fatehpurkala, Baseda tehsil Deoband due to ROW problem.

Meeting with DM Saharnpur regarding redeployment of PAC / police protection for completion of work in tehsil Deoband.


15/12/15 Stringing work in villages Sohanchidha, pahadpur and candenakoli of tehsil Deoband stopped due to ROW problem.

Letter to SP(RA) Saharnpur regarding police protection for start of work in tehsil Deoband. He directed CO (Deoband) for necessary action.


16/12/15 Stringing work in villages of tehsil sadar stopped due to ROW problem.

Letter to DM Saharnpur regarding police protection for start of work in tehsil Sadar. He directed CO (Deoband) for necessary action.


14/04/16 Stringing work in villages Sohanchidha of tehsil Deoband stopped due to ROW problem.

Letter to SP(RA) Saharnpur regarding police protection for start of work in tehsil Deoband.


of 63


15/06/16 Stringing work in villages- Rajapur, Mathana of tehsil Sadar stopped due to ROW problem.

Letter to DM Saharnpur regarding police protection for start of work in tehsil Deoband. He ordered to SDM Sadar for necessary action.


04/07/16 Stringing work in villages- Rajapur, Mathana, Bahedigujjaretc of tehsil Sadar stopped due to ROW problem.

Letter to DM Saharnpur regarding police protection for start of work in tehsil Deoband. He ordered to SDM Sadar for necessary action.

Letter dated 04/07/16.


Letter to SP Saharnpur regarding obstruction in exercising rights provided by section-10 of Telegraph act-1885 / police protection for start of work in tehsil Deoband. He ordered to SSP, Saharanpur for necessary action.

Letter of DM dated 22/08/16


Letter to DM Saharnpur regarding obstruction in exercising rights provided by section-10 of Telegraph act-1885 / police protection for start of work in tehsil Sadar.

Letter No. NRTS-1/DDN/903 dated 24/08/16 of POWERGRID.

07/10/16 Stringing work in village: gagalhedi of tehsil: sadar due to ROW problem and providing police protection

Letter to DM- Saharanpur regarding creation of agitation against uneven demand of tree compensation along with creating ROW to kept the work on hold. DM instructed SDM sadar to provide police protection

Letter dated: 07/10/16

32. We have considered the submissions of the petitioner and the

respondents. As per the investment approval, the scheduled COD of the instant

assets was 10.11.2011 against which the subject assets were put to commercial

use on 31.01.2017 and 3.02.2017. Hence, there is a delay about 62 Months 21

days and 62 Months 24 days in commissioning of the Asset-1(a) and Asset-1(b,

c, d) respectively.

of 63


33. The petitioner in the petition has submitted details of other events in

chronological order in respect of other RoW issues at various locations. The

petitioner has claimed that RoW problems persisted almost till January, 2017.

The petitioner has further submitted that in spite of such inordinate delays, which

started since beginning i.e. 18.10.2010, the assets were commissioned in

January, 2017 by resolving the RoW issues at various locations. The petitioner

has also submitted that all the efforts were made by it to resolve the various RoW

issues and complete the said transmission line at the earliest.

34. From the submissions of the petitioner, it is observed that the petitioner

has faced continuous RoW Problem at various locations on the route of the

instant transmission line and has faced severe agitation from the local villagers

and continuous obstruction caused by the land owners and local villagers. The

petitioner has submitted chronology of events from which it can be seen that it

took almost 75 months to resolve RoW issue. We have gone through the

submissions of the petitioner and are of the view that the time over-run of 62

months 21 days and 62 months 24 days is mainly attributable to RoW issues

faced during construction of the transmission line. The chronology of events and

supporting documents submitted by the petitioner clearly reveals that there were

severe RoW issues faced by the petitioner. The issue was not resolved at the

DM level and the petitioner has also approached MoP, GoI to resolve the matter.

We are of the view that delay due to RoW issue was beyond the control of the

petitioner and accordingly, the time over-run of 62 months 21 days has been

condoned for Asset-1(a). With regard to Asset-1(b, c, d), it is observed that the

400 kV Dehradun sub-station could not be put to regular use without the

commissioning of the transmission line and since we have condoned delay of

of 63


commissioning of transmission line Asset-1(a), delay in Asset-1(b, c, d) is also

condoned. Accordingly, the time delay of 62 months 24 days in respect of Asset-

1(b, c, d) is condoned.

Capital cost:

35. Clause (1) and (2) of Regulation 9 of the 2014 Tariff Regulations provides as follows:-

“(1) The Capital cost as determined by the Commission after prudence check in accordance with this regulation shall form the basis of determination of tariff for existing and new projects.” (2) The Capital Cost of a new project shall include the following: (a) the expenditure incurred or projected to be incurred up to the date of commercial operation of the project; (b) Interest during construction and financing charges, on the loans (i) being equal to 70% of the funds deployed, in the event of the actual equity in excess of 30% of the funds deployed, by treating the excess equity as normative loan, or (ii) being equal to the actual amount of loan in the event of the actual equity less than 30% of the funds deployed; (c) Increase in cost in contract packages as approved by the Commission; (d) Interest during construction and incidental expenditure during construction as computed in accordance with Regulation 11 of these regulations; (e) capitalised Initial spares subject to the ceiling rates specified in Regulation 13 of these regulations; (f) expenditure on account of additional capitalization and de-capitalisation determined in accordance with Regulation 14 of these regulations; 39 (g) adjustment of revenue due to sale of infirm power in excess of fuel cost prior to the COD as specified under Regulation 18 of these regulations; and (h) adjustment of any revenue earned by the transmission licensee by using the Assets before COD.

36. The petitioner vide affidavit dated 3.7.2017 and Auditor Certificate dated

8.6.2017 has submitted the capital cost incurred as on COD and additional

capital expenditure for 2017-18 and 2018-19, which are as follows:-

(` in lakh) Asset Apportioned

approved cost as per FR

Apportioned approved cost as per RCE

Cost incurred as on COD

Cost from COD to 31.3.2017

2017-18 2018-19 Estimated completion cost

Asset-1(a) 49752.15 73806.00 63195.02 2298.23 5803.33 1450.57 72747.15

Asset-1(b,c&d)

8807.00 6677.63 440.66 1004.31 251.08 8373.68

of 63


Reasons for cost variation:

37. As regards variation of FR cost vis-à-vis the actual cost, the petitioner has

submitted that as per policy, the procurement is carried out under open

competitive route by providing equal opportunity to all the eligible firms. The bid

prices are invited for the complete scope of work on overall basis and the

contracts are awarded to the qualified bidder, whose bid is determined as the

lowest evaluated, techno-commercially responsive and, who is considered to

have the capacity and capability to perform the contract based on the

assessment, if carried out. Thus, the variation of awarded/actual cost is due to

various market forces and the pricing strategies followed by bidder(s). The

reasons for item-wise cost variation between approved cost (FR) and anticipated

cost as on COD are explained in detail in Form-5. It is mainly due to

compensation, land cost and higher awarded price.

38. BRPL has submitted that there is huge cost over-run in both the assets

due to preliminary investigation, RoW, land and structure for switchyard. The

reasons filed for the cost over-run are very casual like low/ high bid prices and

actual cost. The RCE, supported by proper justification for cost over-run needs to

be submitted by the petitioner.

39. UPPCL has submitted that the petitioner may be directed to furnish

detailed reasons for the cost over-run in respect of Asset-I and Asset-II.

40. The petitioner vide affidavit dated 8.5.2017 has submitted the reply to

BRPL and UPPCL and the same is as follows:

of 63


“As per policy in POWERGRID, the bid prices are invited for the complete scope of work of one or more elements as a package on overall basis. The comparison of prices for a particular package is also done with its cost estimate on overall basis. Price of individual items will not be compared for the above purpose. POWERGRID adopts best procurement practices. The reason for item wise cost variation between approved cost (FR) and anticipated completion cost are explained in Form-5.”

Analysis and decision: 41. We have considered the submissions of the petitioner and respondents.

As compared with apportioned approved cost of `49752.15 lakh, the estimated

completion cost is `72747.15 lakh. Hence there is 46.21% (`22995 lakh) variation

in capital cost claimed by the petitioner. With regard to huge cost variation, the

petitioner has submitted that the capital cost has increased mainly due to

compensation, land cost and higher awarded price. The perusal of Form-5

reveals the following:

(` in lakh)

Sl.

No

Item Estimated

Amount

Actual

Amount

Variation

1 Preliminary Investigation,

Right of way, forest

clearance, PTCC, general

civil work etc

1155.55 15512.78 14357.23

2 Land 600.00 3794.82 3194.82

3 Structure for switchyard 589.59 2127.85 1538.26

4 IDC 3600.00 14932.03 11332.03

Total 5945.14 36367.48 30422.34

42. The petitioner has submitted RCE. The approved apportioned cost as per

RCE is `73806 lakh for Asset-1(a) and `8807 Lakhs for Asset-1(b, c, d). The

estimated completion cost is within the apportioned approved cost as per RCE.

Therefore, the variation in the capital cost is allowed in the instant petition.

However, the petitioner is directed to submit the detailed explanation for the cost

of 63


variation along with the break-up of each item, rates paid etc. at the time of truing

up.

Treatment of IDC

43. The petitioner, vide Auditor‟s certificates dated 8.6.2017 submitted vide

affidavit dated 3.7.2017, has claimed the IDC of `15102.66 lakh and `1606.73

lakh as on CODs of Asset-I (a) and Asset-I (b, c, d), respectively. The petitioner

has further submitted a statement showing calculation of the IDC, capturing

further loan details such as date of drawl, rate of interest, interest payment dates

etc.

44. IDC discharged upto COD and proposed to be discharged in the

subsequent years as per the statement is as below:

(` in lakh)

Assets IDC (on accrual basis) Claimed in Auditor’s Certificate

IDC discharged as on Tariff date

IDC to be discharged during 2016-17

IDC to be discharged during 2017-18

Asset-1(a) 15102.66 13476.16 377.61 1248.89

Asset-1(b, c, d) 1606.73 1424.41 120.36 61.96

45. From the submission of the petitioner, it is noticed that the loan amount

drawn till COD as per the IDC calculation statement is different from that as per

Form 12-b (draw down schedule of IDC), as below:

(` in lakh) Particulars Loan amount as per

IDC statement submitted by the petitioner (a)

Loan amount as per form 12 b

(b)

Difference

(a-b)

Asset-1(a) 44236.51 43097.96 1138.55

Asset-1(b, c, d) 4674.34 4546.72 127.62

of 63


46. It is further observed that the difference in the loan amount has arisen in

case of Asset-I due to inclusion of Bond LVII (`283.66 lakh) and SBI-Q4 (`512.26

lakh) in IDC calculation which are not included in form 12-b and Bond LVI is

shown as `1069 lakh in the calculation which is `726.37 lakh as per form 12-b. In

case of Asset-1 (b, c, d), the loan amount against Bond-LVII is `1216.34 lakh as

per calculation and `1088.72 lakh as per form 12-b. In this of `43097.96 lakh and

`4546.72 lakh for Asset-I(a) and Asset-I (b, c, d) respectively which are as per

form 12-b.

47. In case of both the assets, it is noticed that the reduction in loan amount

has no impact on the IDC calculation till COD, as the interest payment dates of

the loan amounts not considered for IDC calculation, fall beyond COD. However,

since the IDC on accrual basis till COD in case of Asset-1(a) comes to `15161.24

lakh which is more than the claimed amount of `15102.66 lakh, the same is

restricted to the claimed IDC. In case of Asset-1 (b, c, d), the IDC on accrual

basis is calculated at `1605.65 lakh as against the claim of `1606.73 lakh. The

difference between the claimed and allowed IDC (`1.08 lakh) has been adjusted

in the discharge of IDC claimed from 3.2.17 (COD) to 31.3.17. Accordingly, the

IDC as on COD and the discharge of IDC in the subsequent years is allowed as

below:

(` in lakh)

Particulars IDC accrued till COD

IDC calculated upto the payment date/ IDC allowed on cash basis upto COD)

Discharge of IDC from COD to 31.3.17

Discharge of IDC in 2017-18

Asset-1(a) 15102.66 13476.16 377.61 1248.89

Asset-1(b, c, d) 1605.64 1424.42 119.28 61.96

of 63


The IDC allowed as above is subject to true up. The petitioner is directed to

furnish at the time of truing up, Auditor's Certificate with respect to IDC

discharged till COD and reconciliation of the loan positions as per form 12-b and

that as per IDC calculation statement.

Treatment of IEDC

48. The petitioner vide Auditor‟s Certificates dated 8.6.2017 has claimed

Incidental Expenditure during Construction (IEDC) of `1902.82 lakh and `255.34

lakh as on COD of Asset-1a and Asset-1 (b, c, d), respectively. The IEDC

claimed by the petitioner is less than the allowable limit of IEDC indicated as per

RCE which is comes out to 5.66 %. Keeping in view the submission regarding

IEDC, the same is being allowed while calculating Capital Cost as on COD.

Initial Spares

49. Regulation 13 of the 2014 Tariff Regulations specifies ceiling norms for

capitalization of initial spares in respect of transmission system:

“13. Initial Spares Initial spares shall be capitalized as a percentage of the Plant and Machinery cost up to cut-off date, subject to following ceiling norms: (d) Transmission system

(i) Transmission line : 1.00% (ii) Transmission Sub-station (Green Field) : 4.00% (iii) Transmission Sub-station (Brown Field) : 6.00% (iv) Series Compensation devices and HVDC Station : 4.00% (v) Gas Insulated Sub-station (GIS) : 5.00% (vi) Communication system : 3.5%

……………………………..”

50. We have considered the submissions of the petitioner and respondents.

The petitioner vide affidavit dated 3.7.2017 and Auditor certificate dated 8.6.2017

has claimed the Initial spares and the same is as follows:

of 63


(` in lakh)

Asset I (a) Total Cost (Plant & machinery cost excluding IDC, IEDC, land cost & cost of civil works for the purpose of Initial Spares)

Initial spares Percentage

Asset I (a)

Transmission line

32678.14 326.78 1.00

Sub station 3011.78 40.90 1.35

Asset I (b, c, d)

Sub station 5830.61 86.86 1.49

51. The initial spares allowed for the instant assets are as under:

(` in lakh)

Sl. No.

Description Total Cost (Plant & Machinery cost excluding IDC,

IEDC, land cost & cost of civil works for the purpose of

Initial Spares)

Initial Spares claimed

(Included in B)

Permissible Limit (%)

Initial Spares Allowed

(A) (B) (C) (D) (E)

Asset-1(a)

1 Transmission line

32678.14 326.78 1% 326.78

2 Sub-station 3011.78 40.90 4% 40.90

Asset-1(b, c, d)

Sub station 5830.61 86.86 4% 86.86

Additional capital expenditure

52. Clause (1) of Regulation 14 of the 2014 Tariff Regulations provides as

under:-

“(1) The capital expenditure in respect of the new project or an existing project incurred or projected to be incurred, on the following counts within the original scope of work, after the date of commercial operation and up to the cut-off date may be admitted by the Commission, subject to prudence check: (i) Undischarged liabilities recognised to be payable at a future date; (ii) Works deferred for execution; (iii) Procurement of initial capital spares within the original scope of work, in accordance with the provisions of Regulation 13;

of 63


(iv) Liabilities to meet award of arbitration or for compliance of the order or decree of a court; and (v) Change in Law or compliance of any existing law: Provided that the details of works Asset wise/work wise included in the original scope of work along with estimates of expenditure, liabilities recognized to be payable at a future date and the works deferred for execution shall be submitted along with the application for determination of tariff.”

53. Clause (13) of Regulation 3 of the 2014 Tariff Regulations defines “cut-off”

date as under:-

“cut-off date” means 31st March of the year closing after two years of the year of commercial operation of whole or part of the project, and in case the whole or part of the project is declared under commercial operation in the last quarter of the year, the cut-off date shall be 31st March of the year closing after three years of the year of commercial operation”.

54. The cut-off date in the case of instant transmission asset is 31.3.2019.

55. The petitioner vide affidavit dated 3.7.2017 and Auditor Certificate dated

8.6.2017 has submitted additional capital expenditure proposed to be incurred

during 2017-18 and, 2018-19 and the same are as follows:

(` in lakh)

Asset Cost from COD to 31.03.2017

2017-18 2018-19 Total estimated additional capital expenditure

Asset-I(a) 2298.23 5803.33 1450.57 9552.13

Asset-I (b, c & d)

440.66 1004.31 251.08 1696.05

The petitioner has claimed add-cap for balance/ retention payment under

Regulation 14(1) (i) of the 2014 Tariff Regulations.

56. UPPCL vide affidavit dated 18.4.2017 has submitted that the add-cap can

be justified by the petitioner after submission of item-wise liability flow statement

for each financial year 2014-15 to 2017-18. In response, the petitioner vide

affidavit dated 8.5.2017 has submitted that item-wise liability of the instant assets

of 63


are submitted in Form-5 and the Add-Cap has been claimed under clause

14(1)(i) of the Tariff Regulations, 2014.

57. We have considered the submissions of the petitioner and respondents.

The additional capital expenditure claimed by the petitioner is towards balance

and retention payment along with accrued IDC. Accordingly, the additional capital

expenditure claimed by the petitioner is allowed under clause 14(1)(i) of the 2014

Tariff Regulations.

Capital cost allowed for tariff

58. Based on the above, the following capital cost as on COD and as on

31.3.2019 after taking into consideration the allowable IDC, IEDC and initial

spare is considered for the computation of tariff for the assets covered in the

instant petition:-

(` in lakh)

Asset-1(a) Asset-1(b,c,d)

Capital Cost claimed as on COD 63195.02 6677.63

Less: Undischarged IDC as on COD 1626.50 182.32

Capital Cost allowed as on COD 61568.52 6495.31

Add: Add-Cap During 2016-17 2298.23 440.66

Add: IDC discharged during 2016-17 377.61 119.28

Capital Cost as on 31.03.2017 64244.36 7055.25


Add: IDC discharged during 2017-18 1248.89 61.96




of 63


Debt-Equity Ratio

59. Clause 1 and 5 of Regulation 19 of the 2014 Tariff Regulations specifies as

follows:-

“(1) For a project declared under commercial operation on or after 1.4.2014, the debt-equity ratio would be considered as 70:30 as on COD. If the equity actually deployed is more than 30% of the capital cost, equity in excess of 30% shall be treated as normative loan: Provided that: i. where equity actually deployed is less than 30% of the capital cost, actual equity shall be considered for determination of tariff: ii.the equity invested in foreign currency shall be designated in Indian rupees on the date of each investment: iii. any grant obtained for the execution of the project shall not be considered as a part of capital structure for the purpose of debt : equity ratio.

Explanation.-The premium, if any, raised by the generating company or the transmission licensee, as the case may be, while issuing share capital and investment of internal resources created out of its free reserve, for the funding of the project, shall be reckoned as paid up capital for the purpose of computing return on equity, only if such premium amount and internal resources are actually utilised for meeting the capital expenditure of the generating station or the transmission system.” “(5) Any expenditure incurred or projected to be incurred on or after 1.4.2014 as may be admitted by the Commission as additional capital expenditure for determination of tariff, and renovation and modernisation expenditure for life extension shall be serviced in the manner specified in clause (1) of this regulation.”

60. The petitioner has not submitted Form-6. Therefore, the debt-equity ratio

claimed by the petitioner in respect of the capital cost as on date of commercial

operation (excluding the undischarged IDC) of the Asset-I(a) and Asset-1(b, c, d)

could not be verified. However, from the calculation of return on equity and

interest on normative loan of the instant assets, it is noticed that the petitioner

has considered debt:equity ratio of 70:30 as under:

(` in lakh)

Particulars Capital cost as on tariff COD

Capital cost as on 31.3.2019

Amount % Amount %

Debt 43097.96 70.00 1948.59 70.00

Equity 18470.56 30.00 4546.72 30.00

Total 61568.52 100.00 6495.31 100.00

of 63


61. Based on these details as above, the debt-equity ratio of 70:30 has been

considered as on COD as well as for the additional capital expenditure after

COD. However, this shall be subject to true up, based on the Form-6, which is to

be furnished by the petitioner at the time of truing up.

Return on Equity (RoE)

62. Clause (1) and (2) of Regulation 24 and Clause (2) of Regulation 25 of the

2014 Tariff Regulations specify as under:-

“24. Return on Equity: (1) Return on equity shall be computed in rupee terms, on the equity base determined in accordance with regulation 19. (2) Return on equity shall be computed at the base rate of 15.50% for thermal generating stations, transmission system including communication system and run of the river hydro generating station, and at the base rate of 16.50% for the storage type hydro generating stations including pumped storage hydro generating stations and run of river generating station with pondage: Provided that: (i) in case of projects commissioned on or after 1st April, 2014, an additional return of 0.50 % shall be allowed, if such projects are completed within the timeline specified in Appendix-I: (ii) the additional return of 0.5% shall not be admissible if the project is not completed within the timeline specified above for reasons whatsoever: (iii) additional RoE of 0.50% may be allowed if any element of the transmission project is completed within the specified timeline and it is certified by the Regional Power Committee/National Power Committee that commissioning of the particular element will benefit the system operation in the regional/national grid:

(iv) the rate of return of a new project shall be reduced by 1% for such period as may be decided by the Commission, if the generating station or transmission system is found to be declared under commercial operation without commissioning of any of the Restricted Governor Mode Operation (RGMO)/ Free Governor Mode Operation (FGMO), data telemetry, communication system up to load dispatch centre or protection system: (v) as and when any of the above requirements are found lacking in a generating station based on the report submitted by the respective RLDC, RoE shall be reduced by 1% for the period for which the deficiency continues: (vi) additional RoE shall not be admissible for transmission line having length of less than 50 kilometers.

of 63


“25. Tax on Return on Equity: (1) The base rate of return on equity as allowed by the Commission under Regulation 24 shall be grossed up with the effective tax rate of the respective financial year. For this purpose, the effective tax rate shall be considered on the basis of actual tax paid in the respect of the financial year in line with the provisions of the relevant Finance Acts by the concerned generating company or the transmission licensee, as the case may be. The actual tax income on other income stream (i.e., income of non generation or non transmission business, as the case may be) shall not be considered for the calculation of “effective tax rate”. (2) Rate of return on equity shall be rounded off to three decimal places and shall be computed as per the formula given below: Rate of pre-tax return on equity = Base rate / (1-t) Where “t” is the effective tax rate in accordance with Clause (1) of this regulation and shall be calculated at the beginning of every financial year based on the estimated profit and tax to be paid estimated in line with the provisions of the relevant Finance Act applicable for that financial year to the company on pro-rata basis by excluding the income of non-generation or non-transmission business, as the case may be, and the corresponding tax thereon. In case of generating company or transmission licensee paying Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT), “t” shall be considered as MAT rate including surcharge and cess.”

63. The petitioner has submitted that it is liable to pay income tax at MAT rate,

the RoE has been calculated @ 19.610% after grossing up the RoE with MAT

rate of 20.961%, as per the above Regulation. The petitioner has further

submitted that the grossed up rate of RoE at the end of the financial year shall be

trued up based on actual tax paid together with any additional tax demand

including interest thereon duly adjusted for any refund of tax including interest

received from the IT authorities pertaining to the 2014-19 period on actual gross

income of any financial year. Any under-recovery or over-recovery of grossed up

ROE after truing up shall be recovered or refunded to the beneficiaries on year to

year basis. The petitioner has further submitted that adjustment due to any

additional tax demand including interest duly adjusted for any refund of the tax

including interest received from IT authorities shall be recoverable/ adjustable

after completion of income tax assessment of the financial year. BRPL has

of 63


submitted that effective tax rate should be allowed as per Regulation 25 of the

2014 Tariff Regulations and the petitioner should submit the details of working of

effective tax rate.

64. We have considered the submissions made by the petitioner and BRPL.

Regulation 24 read with Regulation 25 of the 2014 Tariff Regulations provides for

grossing up of return on equity with the effective tax rate for the purpose of return

on equity. It further provides that in case the generating company or transmission

licensee is paying Minimum Alternative Tax (MAT), the MAT rate including

surcharge and cess will be considered for the grossing up of return on equity.

Accordingly, the MAT rate applicable during 2013-14 has been considered for the

purpose of return on equity, which shall be trued up with actual tax rate in

accordance with Regulation 25 (3) of the 2014 Tariff Regulations. Accordingly,

the RoE allowed is as follows:-

Asset- I(a) (` in lakh)

Particulars 2016-17 (31.1.2017 to 31.3.2017)

2017-18 2018-19

Opening Equity 18470.56 19273.31 21388.97

Addition due to Add. Capitalisation 802.75 2115.66 435.17

Closing Equity 19273.31 21388.97 21824.15

Average Equity 18871.93 20331.14 21606.56

Return on Equity (Base Rate) 15.50% 15.50% 15.50%

Tax rate for the year 2013-14 (MAT) 20.961% 20.961% 20.961%

Rate of Return on Equity (Pre-tax) 19.610% 19.610% 19.610%

Return on Equity (Pre-tax) 608.35 3986.94 4237.05

Asset- I (b, c, d) (` in lakh)

Particulars 2016-17

(3.2.2017 to

31.3.2017)

2017-18 2018-19

of 63


Opening Equity 1948.59 2116.57 2436.46

Addition due to Add. Capitalisation 167.98 319.88 75.32

Closing Equity 2116.57 2436.46 2511.78

Average Equity 2032.58 2276.51 2474.12

Return on Equity (Base Rate) 15.50% 15.50% 15.50%

Tax rate for the year 2013-14 (MAT) 20.961% 20.961% 20.961%

Rate of Return on Equity (Pre-tax) 19.610% 19.610% 19.610%

Return on Equity (Pre-tax) 62.25 446.42 485.17

Interest on Loan (IoL)

65. Regulation 26 of the 2014 Tariff Regulations are provides as under:-

“(1) The loans arrived at in the manner indicated in regulation 19 shall be considered as gross normative loan for calculation of interest on loan (2) The normative loan outstanding as on 1.4.2014 shall be worked out by deducting the cumulative repayment as admitted by the Commission up to 31.3.2014 from the gross normative loan. (3) The repayment for each of the year of the tariff period 2014-19 shall be deemed to be equal to the depreciation allowed for the corresponding year/period. In case of decapitalization of Assets, the repayment shall be adjusted by taking into account cumulative repayment on a pro rata basis and the adjustment should not exceed cumulative depreciation recovered upto the date of decapitalisation of such Asset. (4) Notwithstanding any moratorium period availed by the generating company or the transmission licensee, as the case may be, the repayment of loan shall be considered from the first year of commercial operation of the project and shall be equal to the depreciation allowed for the year or part of the year. (5) The rate of interest shall be the weighted average rate of interest calculated on the basis of the actual loan portfolio after providing appropriate accounting adjustment for interest capitalized: Provided that if there is no actual loan for a particular year but normative loan is still outstanding, the last available weighted average rate of interest shall be considered: Provided further that if the generating station or the transmission system, as the case may be, does not have actual loan, then the weighted average rate of interest of the generating company or the transmission licensee as a whole shall be considered. (6) The interest on loan shall be calculated on the normative average loan of the year by applying the weighted average rate of interest.”

66. In these calculations, interest on loan has been worked out as hereinafter:-

of 63


a) Gross amount of loan, repayment of instalments & rate of interest and

weighted average rate of interest on actual average loan have been

considered as per the petition;

b) The repayment for the tariff period 2014-19 has been considered to be

equal to the depreciation allowed for that period; and

c) Weighted average rate of interest on actual average loan worked out

as per (i) above is applied on the notional average loan during the year to

arrive at the interest on loan.

67. Detailed calculation of the weighted average rate of interest has been given

in Annexure I and II to this order.

68. Based on above, details of Interest on Loan calculated are as follows:-

Asset-I (a) (` in lakh)

Particulars 2016-17 (31.3.2017to 31.3.2017)

2017-18 2018-19

Gross Normative Loan 43097.96 44971.05 49907.60

Cumulative Repayment upto Previous Year

0.00 511.74 3878.56

Net Loan-Opening 43097.96 44459.32 46029.04

Addition due to Additional Capitalisation

1873.09 4936.55 1015.41

Repayment during the year 511.74 3366.82 3587.67

Net Loan-Closing 44459.32 46029.04 43456.78

Average Loan 43778.64 45244.18 44742.91

Weighted Average Rate of Interest on Loan

8.64% 8.61% 8.59%

Interest 621.48 3895.59 3844.91

Asset-I (b, c, d)

(` in lakh)

Particulars 2016-17 (3.2.2017 to 31.3.2017)

2017-18 2018-19

of 63


Gross Normative Loan 4546.72 4938.68 5685.07

Cumulative Repayment upto Previous Year

0.00 55.39 448.38

Net Loan-Opening 4546.72 4883.29 5236.70

Addition due to Additional Capitalisation

391.96 746.40 175.75


Net Loan-Closing 4883.29 5236.70 4990.00

Average Loan 4715.00 5059.99 5113.35

Weighted Average Rate of Interest on Loan

8.42% 8.40% 8.37%

Interest 61.98 424.93 427.75

Depreciation

69. Regulation 27 of the 2014 Tariff Regulations with regard to depreciation

specifies as below:-

"27. Depreciation: (1) Depreciation shall be computed from the date of commercial operation of a generating station or unit thereof or a transmission system including communication system or element thereof. In case of the tariff of all the units of a generating station or all elements of a transmission system including communication system for which a single tariff needs to be determined, the depreciation shall be computed from the effective date of commercial operation of the generating station or the transmission system taking into consideration the depreciation of individual units or elements thereof. Provided that effective date of commercial operation shall be worked out by considering the actual date of commercial operation and installed capacity of all the units of the generating station or capital cost of all elements of the transmission system, for which single tariff needs to be determined. (2) The value base for the purpose of depreciation shall be the capital cost of the Asset admitted by the Commission. In case of multiple units of a generating station or multiple elements of transmission system, weighted average life for the generating station of the transmission system shall be applied. Depreciation shall be chargeable from the first year of commercial operation. In case of commercial operation of the Asset for part of the year, depreciation shall be charged on pro rata basis. (3) The salvage value of the Asset shall be considered as 10% and depreciation shall be allowed up to maximum of 90% of the capital cost of the Asset: Provided that in case of hydro generating station, the salvage value shall be as provided in the agreement signed by the developers with the State Government for development of the Plant: Provided further that the capital cost of the Assets of the hydro generating station for the purpose of computation of depreciated value shall correspond to the

of 63


percentage of sale of electricity under long-term power purchase agreement at regulated tariff: Provided also that any depreciation disallowed on account of lower availability of the generating station or generating unit or transmission system as the case may be, shall not be allowed to be recovered at a later stage during the useful life and the extended life. 4) Land other than the land held under lease and the land for reservoir in case of hydro generating station shall not be a depreciable Asset and its cost shall be excluded from the capital cost while computing depreciable value of the Asset. (5) Depreciation shall be calculated annually based on Straight Line Method and at rates specified in Appendix-II to these regulations for the Assets of the generating station and transmission system: Provided that the remaining depreciable value as on 31st March of the year closing after a period of 12 years from the effective date of commercial operation of the station shall be spread over the balance useful life of the Assets. (6) In case of the existing projects, the balance depreciable value as on 1.4.2014 shall be worked out by deducting the cumulative depreciation as admitted by the Commission upto 31.3.2014 from the gross depreciable value of the Assets.”

70. The petitioner has claimed actual depreciation as a component of annual

fixed charges. In our calculations, depreciation has been allowed in accordance

with Regulation 27 of the 2014 Tariff Regulations. The instant Assets were put

under commercial operation during 2016-17. Accordingly, it will complete 12

years after 2018-19. As such, depreciation has been calculated annually based

on Straight Line Method at the rates specified in Appendix-II to the 2014 Tariff

Regulations.

71. Details of the depreciation allowed are as under:-

Asset-I(a) (` in lakh)

Particulars 2016-17 (31.1.2017 to 31.3.2017)

2017-18 2018-19

Opening Gross Block 61568.52 64244.36 71296.57

Additional Capital expenditure

2675.84 7052.21 1450.58

Closing Gross Block 64244.36 71296.57 72747.15

Average Gross Block 62906.44 67770.47 72021.86

Rate of Depreciation 4.95% 4.97% 4.98%

of 63


Depreciable Value 53200.46 55057.35 60751.58

Remaining Depreciable Value

53200.46 54545.61 56873.02

Depreciation 511.74 3366.82 3587.67

Asset-I (b, c, d) (` in lakh)

Particulars 2016-17 (3.2.2017 to 31.3.2017)

2017-18 2018-19

Opening Gross Block 6495.31 7055.25 8121.53

Additional Capital expenditure

559.94 1066.28 251.07

Closing Gross Block 7055.25 8121.53 8372.60

Average Gross Block 6775.28 7588.39 8247.06

Rate of Depreciation 5.23% 5.18% 5.12%

Depreciable Value 6097.75 6829.55 7422.36

Remaining Depreciable Value

6097.75 6774.16 6973.98

Depreciation 55.39 392.99 422.44

Operation & Maintenance Expenses (O & M Expenses)

72. The petitioner claimed following O&M Expenses in the instant petition:

(` in lakh)

Assets 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19

Asset-1(a) 56.36 343.89 355.31

Asset-1(b , c, d) 60.00 385.73 398.53

Total 617.17 1145.05 1238.84

73. As per Regulation 29(4) of Tariff Regulation 2014, the normative O&M for

Asset covered in the instant petition are as under:-

(` in lakh)

Asset 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19

D/C (quad) T/L ` lakh/ KM 1.133 1.171 1.210

400 kV bays ` lakh/bay 64.370 66.510 68.710

400 kV GIS bays ` lakh/bay 55.020 56.840 58.30

220 kV bays ` lakh/bay 45.060 46.55 48.100

of 63


74. As per Regulation 29(4) of 2014 Tariff Regulation, the allowable O&M

expenses for the asset covered in the instant petition are as under:-

(` in lakh)

Asset 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19

Asset I(a) COD-31.1.2017 83.00 KM D/C (quad) T/L

15.46 97.19 100.43

2 Nos 400 kV bays 21.16 133.02 137.42

2 Nos 400 kV GIS bays 18.09 113.68 117.46

Total 54.71 343.89 353.31

Asset I(b, c, d) COD 3.2.2017

3 Nos 400 kV bays for ICT I & II and bus reactor bay

30.15 199.53 206.13

4 Nos. 220 kV bays for ICT I & II and line bays at Dehradun S/S

28.15 186.20 192.40

Total 58.30 385.73 398.53

75. The O&M Expenses have been worked out as per the norms specified in

the 2014 Tariff Regulations. As regards the impact of wage revision, any

application filed by the petitioner in this regard will be dealt with in

accordance with the appropriate provisions of the 2014 Tariff Regulations.

Interest on Working Capital (IWC)

76. Clause 1(c) and clause (3) of Regulation 28 and Clause 5 of Regulation 3 of

the 2014 Tariff Regulations, specify as follows:-

“28. Interest on Working Capital (1) The working capital shall cover: (c) Hydro generating station including pumped storage hydro electric generating station and transmission system including communication system: (i) Receivables equivalent to two months of fixed cost; (ii) Maintenance spares @ 15% of operation and maintenance expenses specified in regulation 29; and (iii) Operation and maintenance expenses for one month” (3) Rate of interest on working capital shall be on normative basis and shall be considered as the bank rate as on 1.4.2014 or as on 1st April of the year during the tariff period 2014-15 to 2018-19 in which the generating station or a unit thereof or the transmission system including communication system or element thereof, as the case may be, is declared under commercial operation, whichever is later.

of 63


“(5) „Bank Rate‟ means the base rate of interest as specified by the State Bank of India from time to time or any replacement thereof for the time being in effect plus 350 basis points;”

77. The petitioner is entitled to claim interest on working capital as per the 2014

Tariff Regulations. The components of the working capital and the petitioner‟s

entitlement to interest thereon are discussed hereunder:-

(i) Maintenance spares

Regulation 28 of the 2014 Tariff Regulations provides for maintenance spares

@ 15% per annum of the O&M Expenses. The value of maintenance spares

has accordingly been worked out.

(ii) O & M Expenses

Operation and maintenance expenses have been considered for one month as

a component of working capital. The petitioner has claimed O&M expenses for

1 month of the respective year as claimed in the petition. This has been

considered in the working capital.

(iii) Receivables

Receivables as a component of working capital will be equivalent to two

months fixed cost. The petitioner has claimed the receivables on the basis of 2

months' annual transmission charges. In the tariff being allowed, receivables

have been worked out on the basis of 2 months' transmission charges.

(iv) Rate of interest on working capital

As per Regulation 28 (3) of tariff regulation' 2014, SBI Base rate 9.30% as on

1.4.2016 plus 350 Bps i.e. 12.80% has been considered for the Asset, as the

rate of interest on working capital.

78. The interest on working capital as determined is shown in the table given

below:-

of 63


Asset-I(a)

(` in lakh)

Particulars 2016-17

(31.1.2017

to

31.3.2017)

2017-18 2018-19


O & M expenses 27.73 28.66 29.44

Receivables 1862.61 1976.07 2049.30

Total 1940.27 2056.32 2131.74

Interest 40.83 263.21 272.86

Asset-I (b, c, d)

(` in lakh)

Particulars 2016-17 (3.2.2017 to 31.3.2017)

2017-18 2018-19


O & M expenses 31.11 32.14 33.21

Receivables 261.34 282.97 297.31

Total 348.45 372.97 390.30

Interest 6.97 47.74 49.96

Transmission charges

79. The transmission charges being allowed for the instant Assets are

summarized hereunder:-

Asset-I(a)

(` in lakh)

Particulars 2016-17

(31.1.2017 to

31.3.2017)

2017-18 2018-19

Depreciation 511.74 3366.82 3587.67

Interest on Loan 621.48 3895.59 3844.91

Return on equity 608.35 3986.94 4237.05

Interest on Working

Capital

40.83 263.21 272.86

O & M Expenses 54.71 343.89 353.31

Total 1837.10 11856.45 12295.80

of 63


Asset-I(b, c, d)

(` in lakh)

Particulars 2016-17

(3.2.2017

to

31.3.2017)

2017-18 2018-19

Depreciation 55.39 392.99 422.44

Interest on Loan 61.98 424.93 427.75

Return on equity 62.25 446.42 485.17

Interest on Working Capital 6.97 47.74 49.96

O & M Expenses 58.30 385.73 398.53

Total 244.87 1697.81 1783.86

80. The petitioner has submitted that the claim for transmission charges and

other charges is exclusive of incentive, late payment surcharge, FERV, any

statutory taxes, levies, duties, cess and charges or any other kind of impositions

etc. The same if imposed shall be borne and additionally paid by the

respondents.

Transmission service agreement:

81. The respondent, BRPL vide affidavit dated 28.04.2017 has submitted that

the petitioner has not filed the „Transmission service Agreement‟ between the

transmission licensee and the designated inter-state customers as per provisions

of Regulation 3 (63) of the tariff Regulations, 2014.

82. The Petitioner vide affidavit dated 8.5.2017 has submitted rejoinder to reply

of BRPL as under:-

“As per Clause13 (5) of CERC (Sharing of Inter State Transmission

Charges and Losses) Regulations, 2010, the notified Model TSA shall be the

default TSA and shall mandatorily apply to all Designated ISTS customers. BRPL

has signed TSA on 19.08.2011.”

of 63


Filing Fee and Publication Expenses

83. The petitioner has sought reimbursement of fee paid by it for filing the

petition and publication expenses, in terms of Regulation 52 of the 2014 Tariff

Regulations. BRPL has submitted that filing fee and other expenses may not be

allowed. The petitioner shall be entitled for reimbursement of the filing fees and

publication expenses in connection with the present petition, directly from the

beneficiaries on pro-rata basis in accordance with clause (1) of Regulation 52 of

the 2014 Tariff Regulations.

Sharing of Transmission charges:

84. The transmission charges shall be recovered on monthly basis in

accordance with Regulation 43 of The 2014 Tariff regulations and shall be

shared by the beneficiaries and long term transmission customers in Central

Electricity Regulatory Commission (Sharing of Inter State Transmission Charges

and Losses) Regulations, 2010 as amended time to time.

85. This order disposes of Petition No. 55/TT/2017.

Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-

(M.K. Iyer) (A.S. Bakshi) (A.K. Singhal) (Gireesh B. Pradhan) Member Member Member Chairperson

of 63


Annexure-I

CALCULATION OF WEIGHTED AVERAGE RATE OF INTEREST ON LOAN

Asset-I(a)

(` in lakh)

BOND XXXIII

Gross loan opening 7881.56 7881.56 7881.56

Cumulative Repayment upto DOCO/previous year

1954.64 1954.64 2606.19

Net Loan-Opening 5926.92 5926.92 5275.37

Additions during the year 0.00 0.00 0.00


Net Loan-Closing 5926.92 5275.37 4623.82

Average Loan 5926.92 5601.15 4949.60

Rate of Interest 8.64% 8.64% 8.64%

Interest 512.09 483.94 427.65

BOND-XXXIV



875.00 875.00 1166.67

Net Loan-Opening 2625.00 2625.00 2333.33



Net Loan-Closing 2625.00 2333.33 2041.66

Average Loan 2625.00 2479.17 2187.50


Interest 232.05 219.16 193.37

BOND-XXXV



132.50 132.50 198.75

Net Loan-Opening 662.50 662.50 596.25



Net Loan-Closing 662.50 596.25 530.00

Average Loan 662.50 629.38 563.13


Interest 63.87 60.67 54.29

BOND XXXV



343.00 343.00 686.00

Net Loan-Opening 4802.00 4802.00 4459.00



of 63


Net Loan-Closing 4802.00 4459.00 4116.00

Average Loan 4802.00 4630.50 4287.50


Interest 448.99 432.95 400.88

BOND XL



133.33 133.33 266.66

Net Loan-Opening 1466.67 1466.67 1333.34



Net Loan-Closing 1466.67 1333.34 1200.01

Average Loan 1466.67 1400.01 1266.68


Interest 136.40 130.20 117.80

BOND-XLI - CHILD1



27.42 27.42 54.84

Net Loan-Opening 301.58 301.58 274.16



Net Loan-Closing 301.58 274.16 246.74

Average Loan 301.58 287.87 260.45


Interest 26.69 25.48 23.05

BOND-XLII



0.00 0.00 0.00

Net Loan-Opening 1000.00 1000.00 1000.00



Net Loan-Closing 1000.00 1000.00 1000.00

Average Loan 1000.00 1000.00 1000.00


Interest 88.00 88.00 88.00

BOND-XLIII



0.00 0.00 155.83

Net Loan-Opening 1870.00 1870.00 1714.17



Net Loan-Closing 1870.00 1714.17 1558.34

Average Loan 1870.00 1792.09 1636.26


Interest 148.29 142.11 129.76

of 63


BOND XLVI



0.00 0.00 0.00

Net Loan-Opening 1004.35 1004.35 1004.35



Net Loan-Closing 1004.35 1004.35 1004.35

Average Loan 1004.35 1004.35 1004.35


Interest 93.40 93.40 93.40

BOND XLVII



0.00 0.00 0.00

Net Loan-Opening 245.00 245.00 245.00



Net Loan-Closing 245.00 245.00 224.58

Average Loan 245.00 245.00 234.79


Interest 21.88 21.88 20.97

BOND XLVIII



0.00 0.00 0.00

Net Loan-Opening 4000.00 4000.00 4000.00



Net Loan-Closing 4000.00 4000.00 4000.00

Average Loan 4000.00 4000.00 4000.00


Interest 328.00 328.00 328.00

SBI 1000 (1.5.14)



0.00 0.00 0.00

Net Loan-Opening 3604.35 3604.35 3604.35



Net Loan-Closing 3604.35 3604.35 3604.35

Average Loan 3604.35 3604.35 3604.35


Interest 320.79 320.79 320.79

BOND XLIX


of 63



0.00 0.00 0.00

Net Loan-Opening 332.00 332.00 332.00



Net Loan-Closing 332.00 332.00 332.00

Average Loan 332.00 332.00 332.00


Interest 27.06 27.06 27.06

BOND XXXI



725.84 967.79 1209.74

Net Loan-Opening 2177.53 1935.58 1693.63



Net Loan-Closing 1935.58 1693.63 1451.68

Average Loan 2056.56 1814.61 1572.66


Interest 183.03 161.50 139.97

Bond L



0.00 0.00 0.00

Net Loan-Opening 500.00 500.00 500.00



Net Loan-Closing 500.00 500.00 500.00

Average Loan 500.00 500.00 500.00


Interest 42.00 42.00 42.00

SBI Loan (Oct 13-Dec13) Child1



0.00 0.00 0.00

Net Loan-Opening 500.00 500.00 500.00



Net Loan-Closing 500.00 500.00 500.00

Average Loan 500.00 500.00 500.00


Interest 44.50 44.50 44.50

Bond LI



0.00 0.00 0.00

Net Loan-Opening 3085.98 3085.98 3085.98

of 63




Net Loan-Closing 3085.98 3085.98 3085.98

Average Loan 3085.98 3085.98 3085.98


Interest 259.22 259.22 259.22

Bond LII



0.00 0.00 0.00

Net Loan-Opening 155.73 155.73 155.73



Net Loan-Closing 155.73 155.73 155.73

Average Loan 155.73 155.73 155.73


Interest 12.96 12.96 12.96

Bond LIII



0.00 0.00 0.00

Net Loan-Opening 1433.25 1433.25 1433.25



Net Loan-Closing 1433.25 1433.25 1433.25

Average Loan 1433.25 1433.25 1433.25


Interest 116.52 116.52 116.52

Bond LV



0.00 0.00 0.00

Net Loan-Opening 370.00 370.00 370.00



Net Loan-Closing 370.00 370.00 370.00

Average Loan 370.00 370.00 370.00


Interest 27.94 27.94 27.94

Bond LVII



0.00 0.00 0.00

Net Loan-Opening 0.00 0.00 283.66



Net Loan-Closing 0.00 283.66 283.66

Average Loan 0.00 141.83 283.66


of 63


Interest 0.00 10.21 20.42

BOND LIV



0.00 0.00 0.00

Net Loan-Opening 2180.00 2180.00 2180.00



Net Loan-Closing 2180.00 2180.00 2180.00

Average Loan 2180.00 2180.00 2180.00


Interest 173.75 173.75 173.75

Bond LVI



0.00 0.00 0.00

Net Loan-Opening 726.36 726.36 726.36



Net Loan-Closing 726.36 726.36 726.36

Average Loan 726.36 726.36 726.36


Interest 53.46 53.46 53.46

BOND LVI



0.00 0.00 0.00




Net Loan-Closing 264.33 264.33 264.33

Average Loan 132.17 264.33 264.33


Interest 9.73 19.45 19.45

Bond LVI



0.00 0.00 0.00





Average Loan 0.00 39.15 78.30


Interest 0.00 2.88 5.76

of 63


Bond LVIII



0.00 0.00 0.00

Net Loan-Opening 0.00 1275.00 1275.00



Net Loan-Closing 1275.00 1275.00 1275.00

Average Loan 637.50 1275.00 1275.00


Interest 50.30 100.60 100.60

SBI (2016-17) Q4



0.00 0.00 0.00




Net Loan-Closing 333.76 333.76 333.76

Average Loan 166.88 333.76 333.76


Interest 14.85 29.70 29.70

SBI (2016-17) Q4



0.00 0.00 0.00





Average Loan 0.00 256.13 512.26


Interest 0.00 22.80 45.59

Total Loan



4191.73 4433.68 6344.68

Net Loan-Opening 38969.22 40600.36 39563.58



Net Loan-Closing 40600.36 11698.63 11698.63

Average Loan 39784.79 40081.97 38597.87


Interest 3435.75 3451.13 3316.85

of 63


Annexure-II

Asset-I(b, c, d) (` in lakh)

Details of Loan 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19

BOND XXXIII



4.36 4.36 5.81





Average Loan 13.08 12.36 10.91


Interest 1.13 1.07 0.94

BOND-XXXIV



127.50 127.50 170.00

Net Loan-Opening 382.50 382.50 340.00



Net Loan-Closing 382.50 340.00 297.50

Average Loan 382.50 361.25 318.75


Interest 33.81 31.93 28.18

BOND-XXXV



13.67 13.67 20.50





Average Loan 68.33 64.92 58.09


Interest 6.59 6.26 5.60

BOND XXXVI



7.13 7.13 14.26





of 63


Average Loan 99.87 96.31 89.18


Interest 9.34 9.00 8.34

BOND XL



18.50 18.50 37.00

Net Loan-Opening 203.50 203.50 185.00



Net Loan-Closing 203.50 185.00 166.50

Average Loan 203.50 194.25 175.75


Interest 18.93 18.07 16.34

BOND-XLII



0.00 0.00 0.00





Average Loan 31.00 31.00 31.00


Interest 2.73 2.73 2.73

BOND-XLIII



0.00 0.00 11.58

Net Loan-Opening 139.00 139.00 127.42



Net Loan-Closing 139.00 127.42 115.84

Average Loan 139.00 133.21 121.63


Interest 11.02 10.56 9.65

SBI 10000 (1.5.14)



0.00 0.00 0.00

Net Loan-Opening 250.64 250.64 250.64



Net Loan-Closing 250.64 250.64 250.64

Average Loan 250.64 250.64 250.64


Interest 22.31 22.31 22.31

of 63


BOND XXXI



350.36 467.15 583.94

Net Loan-Opening 1051.07 934.28 817.49



Net Loan-Closing 934.28 817.49 700.70

Average Loan 992.68 875.89 759.10


Interest 88.35 77.95 67.56

BOND L



0.00 0.00 0.00





Average Loan 56.30 56.30 46.09


Interest 4.73 4.73 3.87

SBI LOAN (Oct10 TO Dec13) CHILD1



0.00 0.00 0.00

Net Loan-Opening 499.00 499.00 499.00



Net Loan-Closing 499.00 499.00 499.00

Average Loan 499.00 499.00 499.00


Interest 44.41 44.41 44.41

BOND LI



0.00 0.00 0.00

Net Loan-Opening 127.92 127.92 127.92



Net Loan-Closing 127.92 127.92 127.92

Average Loan 127.92 127.92 127.92


Interest 10.75 10.75 10.75

BOND LII


of 63



0.00 0.00 0.00





Average Loan 14.27 14.27 14.27


Interest 1.19 1.19 1.19

BOND LVII



0.00 0.00 0.00

Net Loan-Opening 1088.72 1088.72 1088.72



Net Loan-Closing 1088.72 1088.72 1088.72

Average Loan 1088.72 1088.72 1088.72


Interest 78.39 78.39 78.39

Rep Schedule

BOND LVII



0.00 0.00 0.00





Average Loan 42.13 84.25 84.25


Interest 3.03 6.07 6.07

Rep Schedule

BOND LVII



0.00 0.00 0.00





Average Loan 0.00 21.69 43.37


Interest 0.00 1.56 3.12

Rep Schedule

SBI (2016-17) Q4


of 63



0.00 0.00 0.00




Net Loan-Closing 308.46 308.46 308.46

Average Loan 154.23 308.46 308.46


Interest 13.73 27.45 27.45

Rep Schedule

Total Loan



521.52 638.31 843.09

Net Loan-Opening 4025.20 4301.12 4139.71



Net Loan-Closing 4301.12 436.08 436.08

Average Loan 4163.16 4220.42 4027.11


Interest 350.42 354.42 336.89

of 63


Annexure-III

central electricity regulatory …cercind.gov.in/2017/orders/55-tt.pdfpage 4 of 63 order in petition...

Documents